Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1976–1999 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Tinnin v. Stategreen2 sentences1999Our supreme court has held that “normally, absent a showing that the defendant had no legitimate defense interest in support of his motion or that the state had a paramount interest to protect, criminal defendants have a right to discovery, including the taking of depositions from those persons listed as state’s witnesses.” Tinnin v. State, 275 Ind. 203, 207 , 416 N.E.2d 116, 118 (Ind.1981) (citing Murphy v. State, 265 Ind. 116 , 352 N.E.2d 479 (Ind.1976); Howard v. State, 251 Ind. 584 , 244 N.E.2d 127 (Ind.1969)) (emphasis added). 1999Our supreme court has held that “normally, absent a showing that the defendant had no legitimate defense interest in support of his motion or that the state had a paramount interest to protect, criminal defendants have a right to discovery, including the taking of depositions from those persons listed as state’s witnesses.” Tinnin v. State, 275 Ind. 203, 207 , 416 N.E.2d 116, 118 (Ind.1981) (citing Murphy v. State, 265 Ind. 116 , 352 N.E.2d 479 (Ind.1976); Howard v. State, 251 Ind. 584 , 244 N.E.2d 127 (Ind.1969)) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Howard v. State
neutral
2 sentences1999Our supreme court has held that “normally, absent a showing that the defendant had no legitimate defense interest in support of his motion or that the state had a paramount interest to protect, criminal defendants have a right to discovery, including the taking of depositions from those persons listed as state’s witnesses.” Tinnin v. State, 275 Ind. 203, 207 , 416 N.E.2d 116, 118 (Ind.1981) (citing Murphy v. State, 265 Ind. 116 , 352 N.E.2d 479 (Ind.1976); Howard v. State, 251 Ind. 584 , 244 N.E.2d 127 (Ind.1969)) (emphasis added). 1999Our supreme court has held that “normally, absent a showing that the defendant had no legitimate defense interest in support of his motion or that the state had a paramount interest to protect, criminal defendants have a right to discovery, including the taking of depositions from those persons listed as state’s witnesses.” Tinnin v. State, 275 Ind. 203, 207 , 416 N.E.2d 116, 118 (Ind.1981) (citing Murphy v. State, 265 Ind. 116 , 352 N.E.2d 479 (Ind.1976); Howard v. State, 251 Ind. 584 , 244 N.E.2d 127 (Ind.1969)) (emphasis added). | 5 | 1976–1999 |
Murphy v. State
green
2 sentences1999Our supreme court has held that “normally, absent a showing that the defendant had no legitimate defense interest in support of his motion or that the state had a paramount interest to protect, criminal defendants have a right to discovery, including the taking of depositions from those persons listed as state’s witnesses.” Tinnin v. State, 275 Ind. 203, 207 , 416 N.E.2d 116, 118 (Ind.1981) (citing Murphy v. State, 265 Ind. 116 , 352 N.E.2d 479 (Ind.1976); Howard v. State, 251 Ind. 584 , 244 N.E.2d 127 (Ind.1969)) (emphasis added). 1999Our supreme court has held that “normally, absent a showing that the defendant had no legitimate defense interest in support of his motion or that the state had a paramount interest to protect, criminal defendants have a right to discovery, including the taking of depositions from those persons listed as state’s witnesses.” Tinnin v. State, 275 Ind. 203, 207 , 416 N.E.2d 116, 118 (Ind.1981) (citing Murphy v. State, 265 Ind. 116 , 352 N.E.2d 479 (Ind.1976); Howard v. State, 251 Ind. 584 , 244 N.E.2d 127 (Ind.1969)) (emphasis added). | 3 | 1981–1999 |
Johnson v. State
green
2 sentences1978Johnson v. State, (1971) 255 Ind. 589 , 266 N.E.2d 57 ; Howard v. State, (1969) 251 Ind. 584 , 244 N.E.2d 127 ; Amaro v. State, (1968) 251 Ind. 88 , 239 N.E.2d 394 ; Nuckles v. State, (1968) 250 Ind. 399 , 236 N.E.2d 818 . 1978Johnson v. State, (1971) 255 Ind. 589 , 266 N.E.2d 57 ; Howard v. State, (1969) 251 Ind. 584 , 244 N.E.2d 127 ; Amaro v. State, (1968) 251 Ind. 88 , 239 N.E.2d 394 ; Nuckles v. State, (1968) 250 Ind. 399 , 236 N.E.2d 818 . | 3 | 1976–1978 |
AMARO v. State
green
2 sentences1978Johnson v. State, (1971) 255 Ind. 589 , 266 N.E.2d 57 ; Howard v. State, (1969) 251 Ind. 584 , 244 N.E.2d 127 ; Amaro v. State, (1968) 251 Ind. 88 , 239 N.E.2d 394 ; Nuckles v. State, (1968) 250 Ind. 399 , 236 N.E.2d 818 . 1978Johnson v. State, (1971) 255 Ind. 589 , 266 N.E.2d 57 ; Howard v. State, (1969) 251 Ind. 584 , 244 N.E.2d 127 ; Amaro v. State, (1968) 251 Ind. 88 , 239 N.E.2d 394 ; Nuckles v. State, (1968) 250 Ind. 399 , 236 N.E.2d 818 . | 3 | 1976–1978 |
Nuckles v. State
green
2 sentences1978Johnson v. State, (1971) 255 Ind. 589 , 266 N.E.2d 57 ; Howard v. State, (1969) 251 Ind. 584 , 244 N.E.2d 127 ; Amaro v. State, (1968) 251 Ind. 88 , 239 N.E.2d 394 ; Nuckles v. State, (1968) 250 Ind. 399 , 236 N.E.2d 818 . 1978Johnson v. State, (1971) 255 Ind. 589 , 266 N.E.2d 57 ; Howard v. State, (1969) 251 Ind. 584 , 244 N.E.2d 127 ; Amaro v. State, (1968) 251 Ind. 88 , 239 N.E.2d 394 ; Nuckles v. State, (1968) 250 Ind. 399 , 236 N.E.2d 818 . | 3 | 1976–1978 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.